Hacker News Reader

Comment by drivingmenuts | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, that's awesome, but many of us do test on our local machines where https would just be an extra layer of annoyance and having to use .localhost TLD would be icing on that annoying cake.

Since it appears that .dev is a Google internal TLD, would you consider not forcing that rule outside of Google? Effectively, we're getting all the stick and none of the carrot.

Alternately, announce your plans for .dev so as to bring some transparency to the process OR purchase maybe the .vm TLD and mark it for developer local testing in place of/addition to .localhost.

View on HN

.dev is not an internal Google TLD. It is delegated but not yet launched (i.e. made available for registration). We don't use it for anything internally.

You should not be using globally delegated TLDs for local testing. See RFC 2606. I don't see how using .localhost or .test is any more of an inconvenience than using .dev. Indeed it is less of an inconvenience because it will work without DNS shenanigans.

The last round of gTLD expansion occurred in 2012 and there's still many years left until a potential future round. Additionally, .vm is not a valid gTLD because all two letter combinations are reserved for ccTLDs (countries).

And I would love to have some plans to announce. Maybe soon.

What about providing a config switch in chrome etc to disable the new behaviour, so those of us that use .dev in our workflow can turn off the redirection.

You should not be using domain names on .dev unless you own them (which no one does .. yet). If you choose to do so it's at your own risk.

You never should have been using it, though? It wasn't your domain to begin with or your TLD.

It's like complaining that you're using appname.ycombinatordev.com as a development suffix, then someone registers it and all your stuff breaks, and you want them to fix your problem.

It isn't good practice to use random domains or TLDs that you don't own for testing. At work we have a separate publicly-registered domain, and an internal subdomain with NS records on the primary publicly-registered domain that resolves separately. It's never been a problem..

Do you think this plan might encourage developers to develop using another browser?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com